Ummm. If the dog was rabid, i.e. it showed all the symptoms of having rabies, I would hope the police officer would shoot it. Rabid animals are dangerous even 12 pound ones. Even rabid squirrels are dangerous.

Then I thought: that means they can now downsize the range of all those cars (and others) whenever they want to; that scares me. The fact that a "surprise upgrade" is possible means that a "surprise downgrade" is also possible; they shouldn't be touching my car unless I consent.

"... that existing or potential customers [...] give rise to a regular and established place of business"

Wow. Just wow. Having a potential customer in the Eastern District will qualify the case to be held there.

So, if you built target detectors for the something like the LHC you could be worried because if they built a super collider in East Texas they would be a potential customer of a potential collider. I don't think anyone could escape that logic.

I hope when this gets to the CAFC it decides this right -- but they appear to like being smacked down by the supremes.

Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email. He misrepresents his accomplishments at best and lies about them at worst.

Oh he certainly misrepresents. He wrote software called EMAIL and submitted it for copyright protection. He didn't invent email by any stretch of the imagination, he just has a piece of paper from the US Government saying it recognizes that he wrote something called EMAIL; which he misrepresents as "proof" that he invented email.

It is not illegal, if done for personal use. It is only illegal if done for purposes of financial gain.

Not the case. For example, the whole "unlocking smartphones" issue is for personal use (and not for financial gain), is controlled by section 1201, and is illegal at the whim of the Librarian of Congress.

Note what Congress is really doing here - it is shifting the liability for government departments buying poorly secured IoT devices onto the vendor

I don't think so. It means that when the government puts out a bid request for 10,000 web cams it would now insist those web cams meet the requirements defined by this bill (and others).

No vendor is going to make two versions of a product so that they can sell some of them to the government and the rest to the sheeple; they'll invest in the minimum effort to make the web cams compliant and everyone wins.

Of course "win" only works if the requirements are reasonable and with req's coming from the government one never knows.

are made in China, where manufacturers will laugh off foreign legislative band aids

Note that the legislation is not telling China (or anyone else, really) to do anything. What it is saying is that if you want to sell something to the government (mostly read as: DOD) you need to meet the specs. It becomes cheaper for the vendors to do it that way than have two different product lines (usually; some have milspec vs commercial for their products). If they do it right (and my opinion of Wyden is that he'll try) then most IoT products will eventually conform: a worthy goal.

I wonder if any of the other Pirogi/Pierogi Festivals have been hit as well? A quick search ("pierogi festival -trademark") brings up Whiting and Edwardsville of course, but also Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland, and Seattle - and that was only the first page or two).

I hope the Whiting group's wallet gets hurt by this! Unless they were the same weekend, I don't see how there could have been any chance of confusion enough to justify a trademark complaint (and even then ...)

Note Karl said "net neutrality protections" not "net neutrality" so the buzzword not being understood complaint isn't valid.

The old "do you like obamacare vs the affordable healthcare act" is a buzzword comparison (a particular one which amuses me to no end), but if you give people the list of changes involved (e.g. no exclusions for preexisting conditions, child coverage to age 26, definition of what health insurance *is*, etc) people are even more overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation.

The same applies for "net neutrality protections." If you ask people using examples (e.g. no preferred vendors for data, such as Vemo vs YouTube) they do actually support those protections.